OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology of indwelling urinary catheter use in nursing homes (NHs). DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify a diverse sample of 28 Connecticut NHs, defined in terms of ownership, quality ratings, and bed size. PARTICIPANTS: Long-stay (>100 days) residents of study NHs with an indwelling urinary catheter present at any time over a 1-year period. MEASUREMENTS: Duration of catheter use was determined, and indications for catheter placement were documented. Indications considered appropriate included urinary retention or outlet obstruction, pressure ulcer (Stage 3 or 4 with risk of contamination by urine), hospice care, and need for accurate measurement of input and output. During quarterly follow-up assessments, whether the catheter was still in place or had been removed for any reason other than routine maintenance was determined. RESULTS: The overall rate of any urinary catheter use per 100 resident-beds over a 1-year period was 4.8 (range 1.0-9.9, median 5.1). Of the 228 residents meeting eligibility criteria, a documented indication for the catheter was present in the NH record for 195 (86%). Of those with a documented indication, 99% (n = 193) had one or more indications deemed appropriate, including urinary retention (83%), pressure ulcer (21%), hospice care (10%), and need for accurate measurement of input and output (6%). The urinary catheter was removed at some point during the period of observation in 49% (n = 111) of participants; those with a shorter duration of catheter use before study enrollment were more likely to have the catheter removed during the follow-up period. Of the 111 residents who had the catheter removed, 58 (52.3%) had it reinserted at some point during follow-up. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that indwelling urinary catheter use in long-stay NH residents is uncommon and generally appropriate and that efforts to improve catheter care and outcomes should extend beyond a singular focus on reducing use.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to translate and disseminate evidence-based guidelines about atypical antipsychotic use to nursing homes (NHs). DESIGN: Three-arm, cluster randomized trial. SETTING: NHs. PARTICIPANTS: NHs in the state of Connecticut. MEASUREMENTS: Evidence-based guidelines for atypical antipsychotic prescribing were translated into a toolkit targeting NH stakeholders, and 42 NHs were recruited and randomized to one of three toolkit dissemination strategies: mailed toolkit delivery (minimal intensity); mailed toolkit delivery with quarterly audit and feedback reports about facility-level antipsychotic prescribing (moderate intensity); and in-person toolkit delivery with academic detailing, on-site behavioral management training, and quarterly audit and feedback reports (high intensity). Outcomes were evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS: Toolkit awareness of 30% (7/23) of leadership of low-intensity NHs, 54% (19/35) of moderate-intensity NHs, and 82% (18/22) of high-intensity NHs reflected adoption and implementation of the intervention. Highest levels of use and knowledge among direct care staff were reported in high-intensity NHs. Antipsychotic prescribing levels declined during the study period, but there were no statistically significant differences between study arms or from secular trends. CONCLUSION: RE-AIM indicators suggest some success in disseminating the toolkit and differences in reach, adoption, and implementation according to dissemination strategy but no measurable effect on antipsychotic prescribing trends. Further dissemination to external stakeholders such as psychiatry consultants and hospitals may be needed to influence antipsychotic prescribing for NH residents.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between psychiatric consultation and antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes (NH) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To identify the association between psychiatric consultant groups and NH-level antipsychotic prescribing after adjustment for resident case-mix and facility characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Nested cross-sectional study of 60 NHs in a cluster randomized trial. We linked facility leadership surveys to October 2009-September 2010 Minimum Data Set, Nursing Home Compare, the US Census, and pharmacy dispensing data. MEASURES: The main exposure is the psychiatric consultant group and the main outcome is NH-level prevalence of atypical antipsychotic use. We calculated annual means and interquartile ranges of NH-level antipsychotic use for each consultant group and arrayed consultant groups from lowest to highest prevalence. Generalized linear models were used to predict antipsychotic prescribing adjusting for resident case-mix and facility characteristics. Observed versus predicted antipsychotic prescribing levels were compared for each consultant group. RESULTS: Seven psychiatric consultant groups served a range of 3-27 study facilities. Overall mean facility-level antipsychotic prescribing was 19.2%. Mean prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing ranged from 12.2% (SD, 5.8) in the lowest consultant group to 26.4% (SD, 3.6) in the highest group. All facilities served by the highest-ranked consultant group had observed antipsychotic levels exceeding the overall study mean with half exceeding predictions for on-label indications, whereas most facilities served by the lowest-ranked consultant group had observed levels below the overall study and predicted means. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that psychiatric consultant groups affect NH antipsychotic prescribing independent of resident case-mix and facility characteristics.